|
PatB says on 13/Jan/10
I'm amused by the posters who give some person's height to two decimal places. If you want that kind of precision you will need to specify if the subject was inhaling or exhaling when the picture was taken. Take a deep breath and you are about a quarter inch taller. Posture of course is more important still.
Most of the adjustments for age also seem goofy to me. Men lose about an inch from 30 to 70 - some more and some less. No one who posts here has any way of estimating an individual's actual height loss without real measurements. The age adjustments seem to be used as a "fudge factor" that allow you to hold whatever your opinion is irrespective of any evidence.
I turn 67 tommorow. I wondered if I had shrunk. I used to be 6'4". Now I'm only 6'3.75". The reason I don't panic is because when I wear my hiking boots I'm 6'6".
Lee Van Cleef in "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" may very well have been standing in a hole when he confronted John Wayne. The Duke, I understand, was concerned with such issues as the heights of his screen enemies. This is in marked contrast to Arnold Swartzenegger who in "The Running Man" was the smallest man (except for Dawson) in the film. Arnold it would seem was more secure.
Aleks says on 2/Jan/10
After seeing For A Few Dollars more and The Good the Bad and the Ugly, Van Cleef looked pretty tall to me.
Didn't look so big when facing John Wayne in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.
6'2" sounds right anyway. Doug says on 30/Jul/09
He was a tough guy and looked as hard as nails. I wouldn't have messed with him, put it that way. I thought he looked quite wiry though, surprised he weighed 200 considering Sean Connery was the same height and weighed 180 as Bond in the 60s. If anything I'd hvae though Cleef was about 180 and Connery 200, but there ya go. Doug says on 30/Jul/09
No, just look at him standing in the doorway at the beginning of the Good the Bad and the Ugly. Was definately in the 6'2" range legit I thought as he looked taller than 6'2" in boots. I can buy 6'1" at very lowest. Yaspaa says on 11/May/09
6'0 for Marvin and 6'1 for Van Cleef. Comparing these guys against other guys is no good because we dont really know their heights either,Eastwood was never 6'4 either,he's lost 3" riiiight. Ed T. says on 14/Nov/08
Adam,I agree that Van Cleef and Marvin were probably very similar in height, with the slight edge probably going to Van Cleef. If I remember correctly, Van Cleef appeared maybe slightly taller than Marvin in "Liberty Valence".
I just finished watching " The Professionals " 1966, with Lee Marvin, Robert Ryan , Burt Lancatser, Ralph Bellamy, Jack Palance and Woody Strode. I know that you are a big Robert Ryan fan and I think you would like the film. In the film there are several scenes where Ryan is standing right next to or right behind Lee Marvin. At least in my view, Ryan is a good two or two and a half inches taller than Marvin. I know that you agree that by 1966, Ryan was most likely no taller than 6'3.5". Marvin also looks only slightly taller than 62 year old Ralph Bellamy, who was probably around 6'0"-6'0.5" at that time.
There is also a photo shown in the beginning of the movie in which Marvin is standing very close to Jack Palance. Palance looks about three inches taller than Marvin in the picture.
I still believe Lee Marvin 6'1.25" to 6'1.5" and Lee Van Cleef 6'1.5 to 6'1.75" adam says on 8/Oct/08
Ed, you are right. Robert Ryan was 6-4 when he was a young man but by The Dirty Dozen he was maximum 6-3½. Im surprised that Frank2 really saw him as a 6-3 -man! Yes, Van Cleef was about 2 inches shorter than Eastwood and looked again at least 2 inches shorter than George Kennedy in that commercial thing.
I`d say Van Cleef was about 6-2 and Marvin probably around the same height. Bob H. says on 26/Aug/08
I have a copy of "The Vanishing American" from Republic, 1955. There are 2 scenes where Forrest Tucker (6'4") and Jim Davis (6'2 1/2" and Van Cleef stand side by side. In that order. I have it paused on one of those scenes right now. Looks like Tucker wears comfortable low healed boots. He is a bear. Davis wears a high healed boot. I believe it was the style he liked. He was an excellent horseman. I don't think he was concerned with height. He had it. Van cleef is wearing a higher saddle boot also. Davis is about an inch shorter than Tucker (Davis is shorter but has the advantage of a bigger heal). Van Cleef looks 2 inches shorter than Davis. Throughout the film this is true. Put Van Cleef at 6'1"and give Davis the advantage of the higher healed boot... and you have about 2 inches. I peg Van Cleef at 6'1". But I also think he became well aware of image, the tall menacing type he was cast as and did what was necessary to appear taller later in the 60's and 70's. Ed T. says on 16/Aug/08
Frank2, I never met Van Cleef, but based on his film work, I find it hard to believe that he was close to 6'3". I could possibly buy 6'2" for Van Cleef, but not close to 6'3". If he was, then George Kennedy would have been an easy 6'5" as well as Clint Eastwood. I could see Kennedy being possibly a hair over 6'4" and cannot see Eastwood being any taller than 6'4" flat and most likely more like 6'3.5". Again, I never met Van Cleef or Marvin, but I don't believe my opinions are nonsense. Regarding Marvin, when looking at "The Dirty Dozen" , I see a good two inches difference between Marvin and Robert Ryan and a similar difference between Marvin and Donald Sutherland ( look at the scene where Sutherland impersonates a General and does a mock inspection of Ryan's troops. As they stand side by side it is clear that Marvin is noticeably shorter than both, not by one inch or even 1.5 inches, but by at least a solid two inches.) Now, if Ryan and Sutherland were 6'4.25" to 6'4.5" tall , then I would say without a doubt Marvin was a solid 6'2". However, I believe both Ryan and Sutherland were no taller than 6'3.5" in 1966/67 and maybe even closer to 6'3".
Also, please take a look at the picture of Marvin and Keenan Wynn posted by Dave on the Marvin Page on July 9th. Marvin sure doesn't look a full 6'2" in that picture with Keenan Wynn. Frank2 says on 12/Aug/08
Nonsense. I met him and he was close to 6'3". Marvin was a solid 6'2" I met him as well. I'm 5'11" and looked up at both men. They were both several inches taller than me.
James Mason was a close friend of my dad. I saw him a lot growing up. I knew his daughter Portland. She even wrote me a love letter back when she was about four years old! Sadly, she died a few years ago. After my dad passed away, I ran into Mason later on when I was an adult. He was 5'11". Same height as me. And the last time I saw him was six months before he died. He was still 5'11". Ed T. says on 17/Jul/08
I agree Yaspaa. I think Van Cleef was 6'1" to 6'1.5". Seemed to be the same height or slightly taller than Lee Marvin . Yaspaa says on 7/Jul/08
I saw him in a movie with James Mason who is listed at 5'11,he looked 2" taller aso maybe 6'1. He looked about an inch taller than David Carradine in a recentish movie. teo says on 10/Jan/08
I read 1,82 for volonte.It's more realistic than 1,87. luca says on 19/Nov/07
tom,we can find the height of volontè in the first two movies of the trilogy of leone.We have the height of van cleef(188) and eastwood(193).Volonte looks tall,not a giant,but tall. Ivan 6\\\\\\'2.25 says on 6/Jul/07
In the almost perfect movie the good the bad the ugly look 1.5 inch shorter than
clint eastwood tom says on 22/Jun/07
Glenn,do you know the height of gianmaria Volontè?(i read 187 but i'm not sure).
He played in the first and the second of the trilogy of Leone. Brad says on 20/Mar/07
6' 2" but keep in mind, he wore cowboy boots that add 2-3 inches more. Friend of mine saw him at Crash Corrigan's restaurant in Thousand Oaks years ago....the guy still looked like he was ready to pull out the pistol. val says on 16/Mar/07
I don't care what's the exact height of Lee Van Cleef. What's important to me is that he was the sexiest and straight-legged man I have ever seen in western movies. I wish he was still alive! Clint is cute too! Glenn says on 4/Jan/07
I saw Eastwood look 6-4 in dress shoes,1993.now closer to 6ft. CC-Tron says on 3/Jan/07
I think Eastwood looked 6'4 with cowboy boots. Without them he looked closer 6'2. Van Cleef looks 6'2 with boots and was probably 6'0 without them. chris says on 2/Jan/07
Eastwood was a solid 6'4 in his film 'A Fistful of Dollars', i'd put van cleef at about 6'2 Stephen says on 15/Sep/06
Clint Eastwood 6' 3"
Lee Van Cleef 6' 1.5" mcfan says on 14/Apr/06
In an interview, Lee Van Cleef stated that Clint was taller than him. In "Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" Clint sure looked taller by a couple of inches. sf says on 27/Mar/06
No, I don't think he was than Clint taller in "Good, Bad and the Ugly" or "For a Few Dollars More". I think 6'1" or 6'2" is about right. I've read Clint was 6'3" or 6'4". I believe 6'3" was probably his real height and 6'4" in shoes. Johnny says on 25/Mar/06
Yeah,but in The Good,the Bad and the Ugly he was taller than Eastwood? Anonymous says on 21/Feb/06
I don't think he was as tall as 6'2." He was 2 or 3 inches shorter than Clint in For a Few Dollars More. If Clint was 6'4", Lee was maybe 6'1.5." But if Clint was shorter than 6'4," Lee was probably under 6'1." |
